I. K.T. Palanisamy v.

State of Tamil Nadu

2008 (3) SCC 100
Criminal Law Circmstantial evidence Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302, IPC 1860 Appellant and
two other accused convicted of murder by Sessions Court based on circmstantial evidence PW1 to
PW7 were related to the deceased and hence biased PW8 stated that M.O.1 to 3 were not recovered
from him as claimed- Observed that no missing report was filed immediately The fact that the
appellant was the last to be seen with the deceased was not mentioned in the firt information report
Whether appellant could be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence gathered - Held, when a
judgment is to be passed solely based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidentiary chain must
be complete Here, even the fact of death was not proved and all witnesses were biased Cannot
convict merely becase the appellant was the last person to be seen with the deceased Impugned
judgment set aside Appeal allowed.

II. Union of India & Ors. V. Surinder Singh Rathore

2008 (5) SCC 747
Army Service Rules and Regulations Disability pension Army Rules 1954: Rule 13: Medical Service of
Armed Forces Regulations, 1983: Regulation 53, Regulation 423: Pension Rules: Rule 173, Appendix II
Appellant suffered from a form of eye disease called Maculopathy (RT) Eye Was discharged from the
Army due to the disability Granted invalid gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity bt not disability
pension Medical Board and Ministry of Defence held that disability was not attributable to or
aggravated by military service High Court held that Respondent was entitled to disability pension
which was also upheld on further appeaal Whether Respondent is entitled to disability pension Held,
entitlement to disabilit pension to be decided as per Appendix II As medical board was clearly of the
opinion that the disability was not attribtable to or aggravated by military service, the Respondent could
not be granted disability pension Appeal allowed.

III. M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltsd. & Anr. V. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector
2008 (7) SCC 196
Civil Laws Quality of drugs Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 25, Drgs and Cosmetics Act,1940
Appellant allowed to sell a particular drug in the market after quality confirmed by an independent
laboratory Based on report of the Government Analyst of the Central Drugs Laboratory , Drugs
Inspector claimed that the drugs were not up to prescribed standards Appellant denied allegation and
attempted to adduce evidence to prove the Government Analysts report to be false Whether all
requirements of Section 25 had been satisfied - Sectrion 25 requires four samples to be sent Fourth
sample submitted to the Magistrate had to be sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory for retesting but this

was not done Secondly, proceedings were initiated a month before the expiry date of the drugs and it
would be impossible to have them tested before the expiry date Held, rights accorded under Section
25(3) and Section 25(4) had been infringed Appeal allowed.

IV. Meharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

1994 (5) SCC 188
Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code,1860 Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Appellant and two othe
accused charged with murder of one, Lachman Singh Acquitted by Trial Court as FIR was ante timed
and eye witness testimony was refuted by medical evidence High Court reversed Trial Courts decision
with regard to the Appellant Whether FIR in this case has lost its value Held, FIR is of immense
importance as it provides the earliest possible information with regard to the crime and delay in filing
FIR leads to suspicions of embellishment Two parameters laid down by which Courts can judge
lateness or otherwise of FIR First, whether the FIR copy had been filed late with the Magistrate and
second if the FIR copy had been sent along with the inquest report Here, the first was not disproved
and the second was not done Therefore, FIR has lost its value Guilt not proved beyond reasonable
doubt Conviction and sentence set aside Appeal allowed.